Objectivity, which you claim others lack.
Yeah, I got that. What I didn’t get was what that history has to do with my objectivity.
One long ad hominem argument? Welcome to the wonderful world of rape victim dismissal and discreditation. I see you’ve already taken the masterclass.
Well, and I apologize if that memory is uncomfortable or painful for you, I certainly don’t intend to flaunt that, but sometimes when one is too close to a situation or scenario, or if one has similar experiences, they lose some objectivity about how that issue should be dealt with.
Not to worry.
I recall bringing that up in this thread but I don’t recall just now what my point was at the time or what I wrote about it. But the facts are - and whatever I wrote was undoubtedly consistent with this - that it was not a huge deal at the time, let alone now. We were weirded out about it and made teenage-kid jokes and tried to avoid situations that gave the guy opportunities, but it was not a big deal. I had forgotten about the whole thing for a couple of decades but when there started to be all this focus on kids being molested I was once thinking about how I was never molested and remembered this.
Not a big deal. If I met the guy today I would say hello and whatnot and would not bring it up. He was actually a nice guy, other than these issues.
Of course, that’s not to say this was anything remotely comparable to what a lot of genuine molestation victims go through. In sum, I don’t recall what the relevance of that was when I initially posted it, and I don’t think it has any relevance here.
I hear you, and thanks for that, but frankly when you say this specifically, I can’t help but wonder just a little bit:
He was a nice guy, except for him rubbing my legs under the desks. Other than that, he was a nice guy.
He was a great coach, he built a winning program over many years, except for him knowing his assistant coach was sexually assaulting young boys, yeah he was a great coach.
Well if I was saying anything along the lines of “he was a great coach except for except for him knowing his assistant coach was sexually assaulting young boys” I suppose you might possibly perhaps have some sort of vague point (though even there, the difference in scale is very significant).
But I’ve not been talking about that. I’ve been discussing whether in fact the evidence holds up that he knew his assistant was sexually assaulting young boys. That has zero to do with my case, where the facts are not in question.
No you were not saying that at all about Paterno. It was what you did say, specifically about that teacher, coupled with your direct experience with him, that makes me wonder if you’ve lost some objectivity about matters of this ilk.
Look, I have not read a lot of the Paterno and Sandusky issue. I also have not read a lot about the Bill Cosby. I watch the news, different channels to get a better balance. Basically, where there’s this much smoke, there’s gotta be fire.
And with Sandusky, I think it’s more than just smoke.
Sure there are likely to be copycat idiots coming out of the woodworks saying Hey, he did the same thing to me. I don’t on the surface believe every single accuser against Cosby, Sandusky or Paterno, but they are all guilty of some hideous if not criminal behavior, in my mind.
Added: with all this smoke, do you think Paterno is squeaky clean here?
But again, what I’ve said about Paterno has nothing to do with what I said about the teacher.
I don’t think it has the slightest connection. But if you want to think so that’s fine too. I’m not going to keep arguing about this.
You seem to be confusing Sandusky and Paterno. They are two different people. It’s not surprising that you’re confused about some facts, considering that you say you’ve not followed the story. But perhaps you should follow it more closely before commenting.
I’ve followed the story pretty closely, and to my recollection this is the first allegation that Paterno was aware of the accusations against Sandusky and did not report them.
Nobody thinks Paterno is “squeaky clean”. Not even Paterno himself thought that. But there’s a lot of room between “squeaky clean” and what people are claiming here.
Maybe I wasn’t explaining myself clearly, let me try better, hopefully this helps. It is what happened between you and the teacher, what that teacher did to you and your friends / classmates, it is your experience, that could be clouding your objectivity with the Paterno matter. What you said about the teacher, to me, is a possible sign of your being a little too close to this issue (and I’m not trying to equate rubbing legs with rape, no). “Other than that, he was a nice guy.”
Okay, I’ll allow that maybe I’m being a little too persecuting towards that guy, I don’t know him.
Regarding Sandusky and Paterno, Sandusky raped and assaulted minors. Paterno was complicit and probably even enabling the Sandusky behavior. That may be simplistic and not complete, but I don’t think it is inaccurate or confused. Do you think it is?
Yes.
The entire question here is about the strength of the evidence that “Paterno was complicit and probably even enabling the Sandusky behavior”.
In your prior post you seemed to be assuming that the evidence against Sandusky can be automatically equated with evidence against Paterno. But that’s far from the case. And since you indicated you hadn’t really followed the case all that closely, it’s not surprising that you would mistakenly conflate them.
What claims do you object to? My claim is that, based on all the evidence of various reports to Paterno about Sandusky’s behavior, it’s reasonable to believe that Paterno had enough knowledge to strongly suspect Sandusky was abusing children, and he didn’t do nearly enough to stop it. And that this is morally reprehensible.
Do you think there is no room between “squeaky clean” and a “scumbag” with “total moral bankruptcy”? Everyone in the world is either one or the other of these?
There’s plenty of room – but based on the evidence, I’m comfortable assigning Paterno to the latter two. Maybe a tiny bit hyperbolic – he’s not as bad as Hitler (or Sandusky). But there are very, very few things worse than allowing children to be harmed and doing nothing to protect them.
That’s fine. My comment was addressed to Bullitt’s question about whether he was “squeaky clean”.
So what’s your opinion on Paterno?
Thought he was doing the right thing (in the McQueary incident) should have done more follow-up, considering as he was involved in the decision making. Big mistake, as it turned out.
I’ve discussed this all at great length in this thread. Not sure I’m going to rehash it all now.
I gotta say…this didn’t sit well with me either.
I was outraged when I saw some of the details but some of it…well something just don’t seem right. Right as in that doesn’t seem the way I expect people to behave.
I can believe that one man, one lone guy, can witness an adult man sexually abusing a minor and only tell his boss, then keep quiet. But two men? Three men? From the rough and tumble gay-hating football culture, could witness with their own eyes a man sexually abusing a boy in their own showers and do nothing? I would expect that they would beat Sandusky senseless before they had a chance to think about his relationship with Joe Pa. At the very least, one would have exclaimed “WHAT THE FUCK???”
I ain’t saying it didn’t happen, but something is just not adding up for me.
Welcome to the real world. This is what happens. All the fucking time.
Hey, this thread’s starting to get weird.